Ms Eilis Barry:

I thank the Chairman. FLAC very much welcomes the opportunity to make this submission to the special committee.

We believe that access to justice is even more important in a pandemic. Our information line, which provides an insight into the acute and stressful situations that people are facing, has been overwhelmed with queries. These queries highlight the acute need for information, advocacy, legal advice and legal aid in areas of law that most impact on people and groups who are vulnerable and disadvantaged, and areas of law that largely are not dealt with under the underfunded Legal Aid Board with its strict means test, delays and exclusions. The Legal Aid Board has said that it expects a surge in demand for its services once normal practices resume in the courts. The Courts Service was under-resourced since before the pandemic and is now facing significant additional delays. FLAC is very concerned about the difficulties claimants will face in accessing legal assistance, and this will be compounded by the inevitable growing delays in the courts and the quasi-judicial tribunal system.

While we very much welcome the move to online courts, it has to be seen only as a partial solution. It will be unsuitable for certain cases and perhaps for people who have literacy or language issues and those with certain mental health conditions. The digital divide also needs to be tackled. Where possible, we believe that hearings should be held safely within the existing physical infrastructure, but this will need to be resourced. The Courts Service and the Legal Aid Board are essential to the administration of justice and the rule of law, and they need to be resourced accordingly. Access to justice needs to be factored into Government responses to the pandemic.

The Covid pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, introduced in March was a vital response to a critical situation. However, it is regrettable that there was no primary legislation introduced for a period of five months. Many of the issues which arise in the context of the Covid PUP were due to the lack of clarity regarding eligibility criteria for the scheme and its legal basis. These issues were exacerbated by unclear and conflicting information published by the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection as to the eligibility criteria for the payment, which changed over the months. Amendments were made to sections of the Covid PUP web page on gov.iesetting out the eligibility criteria at least seven times between March and August of this year. These changes included the addition of criteria to the effect that claimants were required to abide by certain "holiday rules" while in receipt of the payment and to "genuinely seek work". In FLAC’s submission, these criteria cannot be considered as having been conditions for receipt of the payment prior to 5 August.

In relation to the reported actions of departmental officials at ports and airports, it appears to FLAC that social welfare inspectors have been conducting checks in such settings which exceed their powers under the 2005 Act, which only provides for the questioning of persons in such settings on the basis of "reasonable grounds" for suspicion. Recent information released by the Department under freedom of information raises significant questions around the Department’s rationale for targeting certain flights, with 70% of the flights targeted for checks during this period flying to either Romania or Moldova.

While the 2020 Act provides welcome clarity in relation to the eligibility criteria for the Covid PUP scheme, we are concerned about the legal imposition of a requirement to genuinely seek work while in receipt of the payment. No regulations have been introduced for the purpose of setting out how the recipients for this payment are to be assessed as genuinely seeking work. In addition, no regulations have been introduced providing for the circumstances in which claimants may receive the payment while absent from the State. It is therefore the case that the new Act disqualifies claimants from receiving the PUP during any travel abroad for any period, however brief, and for any reason, however urgent.

Covid has highlighted and exacerbated a number of other gaps and systemic failures in our socially protective legislation which predate the pandemic in a number of areas and which are dealt with in detail in our submission. I will refer briefly to a few in respect of employment law. Between March and August employment law queries increased by 58.7% compared with last year. Issues have arisen in relation to what we call lay-off limbos, refusals or impositions of annual leave, refusals of leave for childcare and the harshness of the suspension of the right to claim a redundancy lump sum.

On evictions, we welcomed the intention behind the Act which purported to extend the prohibition on evictions to all tenancies, as well as prohibiting the forced movement of members of the Traveller community. However, it is our view that the section lacked clarity and suffered from interpretative ambiguities that deprived those who ostensibly should have been protected by its provisions of any means to resist an eviction or seek a remedy.

On debt, we know that persistent mortgage debt from the last recession remains with over 26,421 accounts already in arrears. To these will undoubtedly be added people who find themselves with new debt problems or old debt problems compounded following loss of employment, closure of business, etc. We believe that the framework of information, advocacy, legal advice and legal aid for debtors needs to be reviewed. A Covid debt code to deal with legacy mortgage arrears, new mortgage arrears and new and old unsecured debt needs to be considered.

I thank the committee again for inviting FLAC to this meeting. Myself or my colleague, Christopher Bowes, who prepared a significant amount of the material in the detailed submission, are more than happy to answer any questions.